Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2021 — Online, CA/US
Lincoln Douglas (CA/Nov) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Judging Philosophy - Tim Alderete -The Meadows School - email@example.com
I've tried to make this much shorter:
-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.
- Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!
-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - firstname.lastname@example.org
-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.
-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.
-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but they don't pref me anyway.
-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)
-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.
-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.
-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.
-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.
-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.
I have six years of experience in Speech and Debate and I participated in most IE events and debate events, but my main focus was on Impromptu Speaking and Parliamentary Debate.
For debate, I don't like spreading as per speaking but will understand if it is necessary. I do like road-maps (off time or on time doesn't matter) because I think it helps the speaker stay organized as well. I do flow the entire debate, so sign-posting and staying organized is important to me. I tend to make my decision based on impact calculus and how heavily the teams upheld the agreed-upon framework. One of the biggest things for me is that you are respectful and kind to your opponents, no matter how heated the debate may get.
Feel free to ask me any questions or help you may need!
I competed in LD in high school as well as other Speech Events. I've coached and judged LD and parli debate. Generally, I value the resolution and believe the Aff has the burden to show the resolution is true and neg's burden is to show its false. However, you can run Ks but provide some standard to weigh the round with persuasive arguments on why it is the appropriate standard. It is important for me that the value criterion is well defined and each party has to compare the criterion with that of their opponent. I will use the best criterion to decide the round and how contentions and impact-level arguments interact with the criterion.
Speed: I can keep up with speed to the point it is comprehensible but if I cannot understand what you are saying, it will not make it into my flow, which will ultimately be to your detriment. I like off-time road maps before your speech.
Speech: I am a college professor have 3 year debate and speech judging experiences. All types of presentations are welcome. I make decision base on individual presentation confidence, stage body postures, eye contacts and logical thinking flows.
I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.
In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).
I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.
I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.
I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.
I debated L&D when I was in HS in the last millennium and now am enjoying judging. I am most comfortable with LD but enjoy public forum, policy and parli as well.
- I appreciate good speaking ability- the oral presentation should enhance the message, and not be just reading your speech.
- I prefer to see sound logic and critical analysis over a rush of minimal responses. If you can't respond reasonably to everything, prioritize and defend the top priorities that should decide the debate. I will decide the debate based on weighing, and that critical things are responded to, and in how the weighing ties into the value criterion. I'd prefer to see a win on good logic vs technicalities.
- LD: Whether you win or lose the value debate, I expect you to successfully defend how you meet the value criterion or debate goal in your weighing.
- Signpost and make sure you take the time to properly and clearly represent evidence - clearly tag it and make clear what is the quoted evidence versus your own argument.
- Finally, be kind, civil, and professional. Disagree with your opponent but refrain from disparaging.
Thank you for engaging in this important activity and I look forward to hearing your case!
Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!
Stanford 2020 and 2021
Here are some preferences:
I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.
It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!
Here are some preferences:
Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).
Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.
Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.
Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.
Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.
I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."
For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).
Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.
I was a high school speech (extemp, OO, OPP) and debate (Congress, policy, LD--qualified for Nationals before all of you and maybe your parents were born) and am now the head coach of the Francis Parker Speech and Debate team. I can handle spreading but I find it unpleasant. Please slow down and communicate effectively. LD: this is a VALUE debate and I appreciate competitors who remember that and do not stray into making LD one person policy debate. Thank you and have fun!
Parent judge in 4th year of judging. Has judged almost entirely LD, with a 1-2 PF and Policy rounds as well.
Note for SVUDL Fall 2022:This is my first time judging parli. Please explain all debate jargon used or avoid it all together. I would still like to see cited evidence (see below) when possible, but understand that this can be difficult in Parli.
Truth > tech. I prefer realistic, well-warranted impacts over blippy extinction link chains. If I don't buy it, I won't vote on it. Avoid Ks, T, and all other "circuit" debate argumentation, I will not know how to evaluate them.
Logical responses are also important to me - if something your opponent says is simply illogical or contradictory, call them out on this, even if their argument is warranted. It shows that you are able to think critically and not just regurgitate evidence.
Evidence quality is very important to me. Please provide full author citations. Smith 19 doesn't tell me anything - Smith could be your neighbour for all I know. I love to see comparison and indicting of evidence as it shows me that you are well prepared and know the topic literature.
Please do not speak too fast and sign post clearly. I am flowing and will evaluate on argumentation, but if I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot flow or vote on it.
Please be respectful in round. It makes for a good debate experience for both the debaters and the judge. Speaks WILL be docked for rudeness.
DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).
When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.
SPEECH: For limited prep events, or any other event featuring student writing, I judge mainly on content, so long as the speaker is clear and has no distracting physical habits. Speaking style does come into play when breaking ties or in very tough rounds.
For more performative speech events, I lean a bit more toward performance/style, but I still consider the cutting of your piece to be an essential part of the competition. Pieces with cuts that are illogical or confusing often will be ranked lower for me. I also consider the narrative shape of a performance; I look for a traditional dramatic arc with a clear situation, an emotional climax, and falling action (if not clear resolution).
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
-I like sign-posting
-I like quick off time road maps
Please be respectful and have fun. I prefer NO spreading. I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. Please signpost. You do not have to ask me before each speech, all roadmaps can be off time.
Being rude to your opponent, or cutting them off in CX beyond an appropriate level will reflect on your speaker points.
I am mostly tech>truth as long as there is a solid link.
I value these 7 things most:
2) Speech, Quality, Tone
4) Turns and Rebuttals
5) Flow Through of Contentions
6) Cross Ex Offense and Defense
7) Closing & Quality/Clarity of Final Rebuttals
please be clear with your arguments. sell my vote for me. and have fun.
While I was a PF debater all throughout high school, I only have ~1 year of experience judging LD. I am familiar with common, traditional jargon used in debate, but am not familiar with the more in-depth strategies, which means that I will default to who has the best arguments/framework with robust impact analysis and effective counterarguments.
It is the debater's burden to make sure that speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds -- whoever has the most consistent flow-through and coverage will likely have the advantage.
The quality of arguments alone does not impact speaker points, but the better you explain your arguments, your speaks are likely to improve.
As stated earlier, I do not take points off for speed, but if you lack fluency or clarity, your points will be docked.
I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.
Things I like in debate:
- Debating on the resolution
- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms
- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting
- Strong clash
Things I do not like in debate:
- Spreading (if I don't hear it, I can't flow it)
- Kritiks / theory
- Falsified evidence
Things I am probably OK with in debate:
- CPs, where permitted by tournament rules
Things I am probably not OK with in debate:
- Highly implausible impacts
Good luck... and good skill!
Just don't speak too fast.
Just don't speak too fast.
Be respectful and don't spread
Hi. I’m a lay (parent) judge currently working in a legal field. I decide based on the strength of the contentions to affirm or to negate the resolution and delivery of the arguments and counter arguments to support your contentions and to refute your opponent’s contentions, based on the facts, relevance, logic, and how convincing the overall contentions and arguments are. I like creative, unique contentions as long as they are relevant and sufficiently developed. Not a fan of spreading or other technical stuff. I look forward to seeing a good debate.
Used to be an LD debater.
Paradigm is as follows -
Whether it is a value debate, or empirical or policy, I want clash. There will be no point in debating if I see no clash. There should be crystallization of evidence, because evidence simply being brought up is not enough. Explain to me why this evidence is important, because it's your job to connect the dot, not mine.
Make sure to link arguments back to case.
Hello, I am a journalism professor in the journalism dept. at Cal State Northridge. I have a Ph.D. in political sociology and mass communication so I know a few things about various subjects so don't try to talk about issues unless you truly understand inside out. I am a volunteer judge who have judged congress, LA, PF, Spar, Impromptu, etc... I teach news reporting and worked as a newspaper reporter so I favor speech with clear logic, brevity, facts, objectivity, simple common sense instead of puffery, empty promises, unauthentic pompous speeches..Explain simply so even the 4th graders can understand. I am a big fan of BlackPink., by the way.
I am a freshman attending the University of California, Berkeley. I have had overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level.
Things I look for:
1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.
2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.
3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.
Things I discourage:
1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.
2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.
Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.
Hey there, I'm an LD/Extemper at Sacramento State University. I also have strong background knowledge in parli/IPDA. I allow all theory arguments to be made, however you will have to show me how your shell is tied into the current resolution very clearly if you want to win. One thing to keep in mind, is that I will almost never vote on a criterion of "morality". Everyone in the world has their own subjective morality, and for you to impart your own as a voting issue is not convincing. Of course, if your opponent is being clearly racist or something like that, call it out and we'll deal with the bastard, but I would refrain from using it as a voting issue. I can keep up with moderately fast spreading, but i may ask you to slow down. If i do, please do so. After the third time I tell you, I'll start deducting speaks. Time yourselves please. Other than that, I'm pretty flexible.
I've never debated, but I have judged quite a few tournaments at this point. I appreciate debates where the participants take time to speak clearly and reasonably slowly, so that I can hear what they are saying. On that note, I also appreciate debaters who don't speak over others, exercise kindness, and who really make an effort to consider and address other participants' input. Two sided discussions are always more fruitful than monologues that ignore each other. Lastly, I love when participants are mindful of the ways that history has shaped class, race, disability, and gender issues in our society today. Marginalized people and their histories deserve dignity, and a place in all of your discussions. Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!
-Judge Kabang Lauron
Debated Policy for Polytechnic for 4 years on the national circuit in High School. Semis at Berkeley, and like 6 or 7 other tournaments that I made it to outrounds at. Currently debate for Cornell's team.
Anything goes for me, as long as it's well argued.
For most arguments, I'm fairly in line with where my past coach stood. Here's his paradigm pasted below.
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.
2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.
3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.
2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.
2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.
2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.
3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.
1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.
2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.
3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.
Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.
Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.
2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.
Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.
I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.
I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.
I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu
Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.
Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.
Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.
Debated LD - 1997 - 2001
Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present
Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017
I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.
Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
I am a lay judge, this is my fourth year of judging league and invitational speech and debate. If you have any questions, please ask.
Email for chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Because this is being done online, please slow down a bit. I would hate to miss anything due to latency or other technical issues. If you need to spread I won't stop you, but your opponent might miss something, and I might miss something.
I am open to just about anything, but explain it like I am new to the argument. I am most likely not familiar with the sources you are using to cut your cards.
Please have fun.
Updated for Glenbrooks
Jack Howe was my first TOC tournament since 2020. I am a bit rusty, but should be able to keep up decently well speedwise (I'd rate myself a 7.5), try to keep this in mind. For more advanced arguments, please do your best to make everything clear and layout how it interacts with the round as I get back into the scene.
Slightly tech over truth
I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists.
All forms of debate:
Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.
I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.
I'm fine with speed to the extent your opponent is comfortable with. Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly.
I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.
My most important personal preference: Manners
This event is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.
Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.
Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.
Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (
frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.
I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.
I accept the use of Kritiks when permissible.
I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.
Signpost Signpost Signpost
Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.
Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.
Argument wise, basically anything goes (
In regards to spreading in Parli, I personally am not a fan considering most people can barely cohesively spread with speech docs in front of them. Respect "clears" and "slows" from anyone involved in the round.
I debated all 4 years when I was in high school. Currently attending UCSD.
Be polite and respectful to your opponents
Conflicts: Torrey Pines HS and Torrey Pines Independent (was Head Coach of S&D for TPHS)
Include me in the email chains: email@example.com
Slow down for tags/authors/analytics, I'll tell you to slow down and clear in round if necessary.
I'll vote off of most arguments, I am more familiar with Phil and case debating, make sure to explain arguments very well too
I evaluate the role of the ballot as the highest layer in the kritik
I'm not as familiar with K debate so please give good overviews and explanations
Perms are good for aff debaters, make sure links are specific
I evaluate theory as the highest level of debate
Make sure to articulate your arguments, especially if you're reading analytics
Competing interps vs reasonability debate is important
Friv theory is bad, 0 speaks xd
I love disads and political args
Link debate is important
Weighing your arguments is very important
Make sure the CP solves the net benefit. CP debates are good if well articulated. Explain the CP text well to me.
Floating pics are not acceptable
I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major.
Chance that I will not be able to understand, so if you do choose to run, please explain very well
PLEASE DON'T PREF ME.
I'll vote off the flow. I won't flow cx so repeat important concessions in your speeches. I also take evidence ethics violations seriously, I will ask for evidence after round if it is an issue in round or if someone asks me to in a speech. If there is legitimate abuse, I will drop you and dock your speaker points.
Speed: fine with speed but don't hit spreading levels, this is PF.
Theory: I'll only vote off of it if you can explain why it's critical for the round
I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.
I competed in Public Forum debate for three years so I would consider myself more of a tech judge than a lay judge. I am ok with speed as long I can understand you clearly. Please tell me where on the flow you are during your speeches so I know what are you are talking about/responding to. Please also keep track of your time.
After retiring as a speech and debate coach to focus on classroom teaching, I am a semi-regular judge after 18 years of coaching and competing in both high school and college debate. I also spent 20 years cutting, compiling, and editing debate handbooks and running a summer debate institute across three different debate formats.
In all debate events, I have high standards for using evidence in debate due to the modern media landscape and wide availability of junk information sources. All forms of debate should include properly cited and read evidence. I expect sources to be cited, along with their credentials. I am very open to arguments regarding the quality of a source and bias; however, if you can explain why citing various hacks from TruthOut or NewsMax makes sense in the context of your argument, I’m open to it. Don’t misrepresent evidence, and also don’t cherry-pick conclusions out of a card without including the analysis behind it. I dislike the trend of "cutting short" reading of a card when the cut substance is the warrant or justification for the claims, and I simply give little-to-no credibility to evidence that is paraphrased by debaters.
My preference is for evidence-centered debate in constructives, with analysis-centered debate in rebuttals.
In Policy Debate, I am an open-minded judge willing to listen to any type of argument. I prefer policy-oriented arguments over other styles of argumentation. I am also inclined to weigh impacts at the end of a debate. For example, if an affirmative team presents a case and plan and the negative’s only standing argument at the end of the round is that the affirmative plan isn’t as effective as stated, but there is nothing to weigh that against (a disadvantage, a case turn, etc.), I will likely vote Affirmative. I am also more likely than a typical 202X judge to listen and weigh on-case argumentation. I am open to K/framework arguments, but you'll need to explain more how you want me to judge these and weigh them for me in the round.
The final two rebuttals need to crystalize why you believe you would win the round. If you don't present a straightforward narrative on filling out my ballot, you leave that power to me (and potentially your opponent).
In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I tend to be more open to the policy implications than a traditional Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge. However, I will still happily listen to a conventional LD analysis on both sides of a debate. I am open to balance negative positions, in part due to the poor wording of some topics. I abhor name-dropping philosophers. If you use Kant or Wollstonecraft or Locke or Mill or Rand or Foucault, be prepared to show me (and your opponent) that you understand their philosophy before explaining how it applies to the given topic or argument.
In Public Forum Debate, I want teams to build a narrative and decision calculus FOR me since the theory behind this format seems to be ever-evolving. Be sure to spend time in the Final Focus periods giving me at least one minute of telling me how I should vote and why, and then let me do the rest.
Stuff I Like
I like respectful, inclusive debaters that love participating in debates as much as winning them. I like clear signposting of arguments and taking time to explain to me a clear sense of how you think I should judge this particular debate.
Stuff I Don’t Care For
I can handle speed (maybe less than I could 20 years ago), but it isn’t a replacement for smart argumentation. The smart, slow team will beat the speedster team with shallow analysis (almost) every time. Also, remember… there is a decent chance that debating over Zoom diminishes your clarity. Speed itself is often misunderstood: the point of speed is to offer more argumentation while not diminishing communication. If I'm not getting it because you are speeding through things you shouldn't be (signposting, card tags, analytical arguments), that's your fault, not mine.
Other sundries… I was a 1st Affirmative policy debater back in the day and believe the 1AR should cover all arguments, though a dropped argument alone doesn’t justify a negative ballot; research is the base of all good debate arguments in all formats, you should know what you are talking about because you did the work; in Policy and Public Forum Debate, please be nice to your partner, along with your opponents… there is nothing more awkward than watching a debater verbally berate their partner during prep time; good T debates are fun and educational… bad T debates are not.
The students I debated with and against in high school and college are all doing amazing things in their adult lives. The debaters I coached are all doing amazing things in their adult lives. Debate is fun and competitive, yes, but it is about developing a skill set that will pay you back over and over again for the rest of your life. I suspect that is why you do this.
Hi, nice to meet you!
In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.
I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!
If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:
General/Important Things on How I Judge:
-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.
-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.
-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them
-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.
-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.
-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.
-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.
Background on Me:
-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).
-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.
-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.
-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.
-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.
-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)
-It should make sense and be specific to the round.
-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)
-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)
Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.
-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.
-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.
-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.
-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.
-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.
-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.
Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.
25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).
26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.
27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.
28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.
28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.
29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.
30: You were godly.
This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.
- I don't like speakers who rush their speech in order to convey a lot of information within a given time.
- I prioritizes arguments that are well-supported and clearly tied to the resolution.
- I give higher points to debaters who provide strong, well-researched evidence to support their contentions and clear explanations.
- I give higher points to debaters who deliver their arguments in a clear, confident, and engaging manner.
I am a parent judge with limited experience. I would prefer your case/script email to me or share it in the tab room file share section. This will help me warm up my minds before going to the debate.
I'm currently an undergrad at UC Berkeley and an assistant Speech and Debate coach. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside that, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly Impromptu/Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!
General Debate Notes
Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as/more important than your cards/impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear holocaust argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance. Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case/refutations as accurately as possible and it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it I can't give you credit. Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming while your camera is on, I'll probably tank speaks if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.
Kritiks & Theory
I'm open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with K's so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case. Make sure the K actually makes sense for the specific round, not one that you already decided to run before the topic is even announced. (It's an exclusionary tactic against new debaters and makes me sad ). Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or this structure to explain why a definition or argument is abusive!
I'm pretty generous when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling very bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)
About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.
Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.
Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.
Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.
In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.
Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.
Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame
Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.
I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.
Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.
FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.
K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.
I'm way more truth than tech.
Hi Everyone. I am an experienced parent judge, and know how to take general notes and as long as you send a doc, that is well formatted, you can probably get away with talking a little faster. As for my general preferences.
1. YOU ARE IN A LAY ROUND! Thus I expect you to utilize delivery and external persuasive techniques. The winner isn't who can win the most arguments, its the one who wins the most impactful argument and can present it in a way that shows its impact. Thus not only explaining what the voters are, but why those must be the voter is very important.
2. CX is very important. This is the only time in the debate round where you can directly engage with you opponent, so use it. This is the time you show me how your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about, by asking strategic questions and replying strategically. Considering all this, it is never okay to be rude to your opponent or to make your opponent feel uncomfortable.
3. Delivery. Like I said you can go slightly faster (not spreading), as long as you are clear. Clarity is key. This is reflected not only in whether you stutter or not, but also word choice and being able to explain a concept in a way that is easy to understand.
These are my general preference, and should give you an idea of how you want to structure your speeches. Note I am taking notes, not flowing, thus it would be great if you guys could adapt to these criterions, cause otherwise the lense at which you look the round from may be different than how I look at the round.
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so please pay attention to this preference.
- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
Am a lay judge. Please make sure to speak clearly and give an off-time road map
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.
Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.
Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.
Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.
***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***
Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).
DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)
Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)
Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.
Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.
Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.
Things that make me happy:
• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.
• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")
• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)
Things that make me sad:
• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.
• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).
• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")
• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.
• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)
• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.
• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh
My preferences are:
- State your contentions clearly
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. If you see me drop my pen you're going too fast.
- Be polite
Track your own time and your opponent's time.
Email Chain: email@example.com
FC 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater
CSU Long Beach 2020-2022 Parli & Policy Debater
CEDA & 2x NPTE Competitor (National Rank: 14th lol, as if that means anything)
I am a former burnout parli and policy debater. That means that I have not read a single news article, listened to a single political podcast, or read a single scientific journal since graduating. Instead my time has mostly been spent going clubbing, raving, and traveling.
How many rounds do I have on the topic? Zero :) cite & explain the context of your evidence.
During undergrad I was barely a K debater and sort of a soft left aff debater. While a lot of my advocacies were v performative aka "embrace eroticism", I truly like hearing straight up policy debates more often than not, or at least I'm prob the judge you want in straight up v K debates. My current mode of thought tends to be more of a pragmatist. I see debate as educational sure, but I also am the type of person that now defaults to believing the state to be inevitable, etc. Rachel as a judge is a lot more grounded and lukewarm than Rachel as a debater.I am not a fan of Theory debates just bc you can. If you run like 6 off with most being theory I'm probably going to tank ur speaks, but I won't necessarily vote you down. With that being said, I don't see debate as a game, but more educational than not. Usually my impacts talked about the educational importance of the type of knowledge we produced in a debate round. I believe that to be true.
Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:
Please have clear spreading before you try to pick up speed.
Extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it. That also means if it's brought up in constructive but not extended in rebuttals... well...again, won't vote off it. Especially true for the 1AR 2AR speeches.
Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. Explain why the arguments you're winning outweigh the arguments your opponent is winning. With that being said, try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.
Evidence. Go beyond the tag and tell me the story of the debate.
Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic, if that is your Strat. If you reject the res all together that's great! Let me know why your education is critical to the round and/or why procedural fairness shouldn't matter. I give the Aff a lot of leeway and T usually goes for Aff (I don't like you throwing out Ts just to waste time and if its clearly a topical Aff, don't do it).To win the K, you must be able to tell the story of the alt effectively. I need to be able to see what the alt tangibly does and how it would change the world, the debate space, etc. That doesn't mean I think alts are vague, that means I think debaters are vague about their alts. Key distinction.
Identity/Race Args: Love them. Will be sympathetic to them, but I have and will vote against them. Good debating comes first before the argument ran however Truth > Tech. I don't equate good debating to purely tech. I've met lots of good debaters who maybe are losing the line by line, but know how to tell the story of the round so that they still win. I love arguments that especially talk about queer theory (pls no straight-up Edelman :'( ive heard him so much), eroticism, and latine/latina identities. However I'm not a fan of identity politics. If your arg is centered around you needing to win because of your identity, that won't win me over.
Don't run identities args you don't identify with. This reproduces marginalized communities' suffering as fungible in order to win a ballot. Lame, I'm not a fan.
Cps. Run your CP. I'm not particularly convinced by condo bad theory and probably won't vote on it unless someone is running more than 3 advocacies...even then...eh. I'm a firm believer in Neg Flex, so you'll have to do some more work on condo bad for it to be a voting issue.
Theory. Please slow down, theory tends to have extremely condensed arguments and because of that it can get blippy. I'm most likely not the judge you want to run more than 3 theory sheets on. I have a high threshold for theory because I see proliferation of theory as harmful to the quality of debates. That being said, don't be afraid to run theory if it makes sense to you, just be prepared to justify it.
How to get high speaks:
-Don't give me roadmaps (I like to be surprised :^D)
-slur the tags ❤️
-Run Ks you made during pre-round prep
-read my partner's fw cards during the round
-actually just read my entire eroticism shell word for word I love it
-spend your neg block telling me the role of the neg bc i obvi have never debated
Okay actual speaks:
-any edm reference: nghtmre, illenium, zedd, mvse, subtronics, audien
-honestly if you're funny I'll give high speaks
-be smart over being aggressive (probably my biggest regret as a debater was taking things too seriously, have fun and let your arguments speak for themselves. I promise you a smart argument doesn't need an overly aggressive debater to win the ballot)
-- updated for nsda nats 2023 --
I do tend more flay during this tournament - I would deeply prefer a slower, emphasized pace with really good explanations of warrants and arguments. You are welcome to read the below, but it's long and most of it relates to more progressive debate. I'm not opposed to progressive debate at this tournament, but I strongly encourage the 'layification' of progressive debate here. There are times where PF debate SHOULD be easily accessible to the public, and I believe that NSDA Nationals is one of those times.
Congratulations to all for qualifying to this tournament, you should ALL feel amazing just for earning the opportunity to compete at this tournament. Good luck, and speak well!!
—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—
Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.
Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.
- I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
- If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
- if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My internal speaks scale:
- Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
- 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
- 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
- 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.
Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.
Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.
- I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.
Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!
Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!
- I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
- There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.
*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***
- norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
- gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
- norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate
K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!
- A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
- most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
- in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
- Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
- Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
- Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)
I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.
I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.
Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.
Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.
- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread.
- Be polite.
-Track your own time.
- I like quick off-time road maps.
- For those debaters who have Nuclear War as an argument - I hope you have evidence to support it.
For all events:
- Absolutely no spreading.
- Treat your opponent with respect.
- Have fun!
hi, my name is Xiaoyun (Shao'you). I am a new judge, speak slowly and use clear logic. I am not familiar with the debate tech. terminologies.
I work for an IT Startup company. I have Master degree in CS from University of Michigan. I enjoy to teaching kids STEAM, led many teams to robotics tournaments. I am interested in public speaking and debate classes.
I am new to judging LD events so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear communication and presentation of your case. I will not flow spreading, so please avoid it!
I'm Yun Ye, new to the debate program judging.
- - State your contentions clearly
- - Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.
- - Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.
- -Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.
- -I like sign-posting
- -I like quick off time road maps